Ode to a Dying Genre (Part One)

Fantasy is the new superhero film. If you need to have a genre favourite in cinema then fantasy films are the new it. Whether that's science fantasy, medieval fantasy, monstrous fantasy, surrealist fantasy or just elements of fantasy in 'normal' movies, it does seem to be the way some films are going and they're going in this direction and leaving 'superhero fantasy' in their wake. No one, it seems, wants superheroes any more and to be fair to the people, it isn't their fault. That falls squarely at the feet of the companies grinding out the shit cluttering up cinemas and streaming platforms.  

The irony is that the last film from DC - Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom - was so bad it was like they were shooting themselves in the foot. There's hype surrounding James Gunn's new DC superhero universe and much of it is tentatively positive - he does have good form - so DC releases the final 'old school' film and it is execrable and arguably one of the worst superhero films ever to grace the big screen. Why is that? Why would they do that? More importantly, the Batgirl film that Warner's pulled completely must have been so bad, because if they felt Aquaman 2 was worth a release... Actually, I can answer this quite confidently - Aquaman was a success at the box office (remarkably) so they figured as it had form then the sequel would probably be far more lucrative than a Batman spin-off they weren't enamoured with. From a layman's perspective, Batman films usually fill the Warner Bros coffers, even if Batgirl had been made with marionettes and retired actors from the Troma dynasty of films, it would probably have made some money. The thing is confidence isn't high at Warner Brothers, even with a reboot on the horizon.

You would think Warner Bros would want to give Gunn's new look universe some help. The next Superman film and the first in the new look is scheduled for 2025, that's only just over a year since Aquawank came out, it's not like people are going to have forgotten about it and audiences are not known for their bad memories or their forgiveness. Giving superheroes a year off isn't going to whet appetites; 10 years maybe, but a year isn't enough...

However, as woeful as the Aquaman sequel was, it wasn't even in the same league of shite as Madame Web which currently sits at 3.7 on IMDB, which is almost as low as Sharknado (3.3). I mean Dakota Johnson has form for being in shit films - the 50 Shades franchise - but this is taking it to a whole new level of piss poor. I can't tell you how bad Madame Web is because I haven't soiled my eyes watching it, yet will probably when it becomes available to stream - just so I can tell you all how bad it is. This is a nadir in Sony's woeful attempts at creating a Spider-Man universe where Spider-Man doesn't exist - an idea that makes no sense at all. Yet, here we are and with the delayed and delayed Kraven the Hunter about to finally show up in August we're probably witnessing the death throes of Sony's Spider-Verse as a live action universe. This film, originally scheduled for autumn 2023, has, like Madame Web, undergone extensive rewrites and reshoots - probably by AI - to try and kickstart a franchise that should never have gone further than Venom and that's me being generous.

The thing is there might be salvation on the horizon. With Marvel/Disney in turmoil over their future, Sony has been toying with the idea of bringing back Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield or even both of them. There is nothing in the deal between the MCU and Sony that states Sony can't make Spider-Man films, they just have problems with Tom Holland - he is MCU Spidey and I won't even try to explain the legal side of this because when I read about it, the entire thing made my straight hair curly. Simplistically, Tom Holland's Spidey exists in the MCU he cannot exist in Sony's Spider-Verse; that doesn't mean there can't be a Spider-Man, but it has to be an extant Spider-Man not a new one. Plus Sony doesn't want to do another origin film, so the avenues of workability narrow all the time, unless they use Maguire or Garfield or both. Just to add a wrinkle to this, there's no guarantee Garfield will be interested; he stated he'd love to do another 'team-up' but he feels he's too old and has moved on from helming a solo Spidey film; while Maguire, whose career isn't exactly booming at the moment, is 100% up for reprising his role, albeit as a much older and wiser web-slinger.

Would a 'new' Spider-Man film work outside of the MCU? It depends on who made it and who wrote it; if it had the feel of Sam Raimi's originals but also the modern feel of the MCU then you'd struggle not to see it not working to certain extent. It would also throw a curveball at Disney because they essentially need to make a new MCU Spidey film inside five years and nine months of the release of the last one or they essentially renege on the deal they have and if you've been paying attention you'll be aware there's been friction between Disney and Sony over the character already and while Sony have been able to make Spider-Man films, there's a sort of gentlemen's agreement between the two companies that this would be limited to animation. There's nothing in the agreement between companies that states that Sony can't bring Maguire or Garfield back and frankly if they did it would probably limit the MCU Spidey to appearances in Avengers films or even complete retirement, as the third film in the MCU's trilogy effectively ended Peter Parker's association with the Marvel Universe. Disney wants to have a new Holland trilogy starting in 2026 and Sony's Beyond the Spier-Verse is scheduled for 2025, but there is a spider-sized hole in the schedules at the moment...

The problem all the companies have is whether there's going to be an audience for anything they pump out. The MCU has shelved everything on its schedules apart from Deadpool 3, which they have renamed Deadpool and Wolverine, which is essentially one of the most shameless attempts at manipulating a film's potential audience as you will ever see. It might be an R rated movie, but you can guess there will also be a PG rated version as well (like there was for Deadpool 2) because Disney will want to maximise the audience for what will be their only 'superhero' release of 2024. Plus there's going to be so much tying it in with almost everything that has happened before, it's going to feel like a ride at a theme park rather than an actual story. I want to say I'm looking forward to it but I don't look forward to anything Marvel/Disney does any longer.

What we now know is the film will have the TVA in it, it will also have appearances by some of the X-Men and the main villain will be Cassandra Nova, the 'sister' of Charles Xavier, who will be played by Emma Corrin (she played Lady Di in The Crown and was in the execrable Murder at the End of the World). This character's inclusion has meant that rumours are rife that Patrick Stewart will reprise his role as Xavier - another forward thinking move by Disney, given that Stewart is in his 80s, so therefore has longevity on his side... The new trailer that was released last month also hints that The Hulk will be in it - this might be Eric Bana's Hulk or maybe even Ed Norton's, because if it had been Mark Ruffalo, he would have told everyone by now. Ruffalo might be back playing Ol' Greenskin soon enough, but more of that in a bit... We also know that almost every pre-MCU superhero film will be 'tagged' with even Jennifer Garner reprising her role as Elektra. Some are seeing a way to accept every Marvel film ever made as alternates from the multiverse and therefore give Disney a shot at showing all these films on their streaming platform if they can obtain the rights to show them. I mean, that's a cynical suggestion, I know, it's not like Disney is renowned for its altruism.

What I'm dreading and a lot of people are watching very closely is the Fantastic Four film, largely because many believe it's not going to be the saviour of the MCU. We're at a position with Disney where they want Marvel to continue to work for them and make loads of money, otherwise its purchase will be seen as a short term thing and if that happens many see them trying to sell it off - it's how these kinds of things work in US business. The comicbook industry is a cottage industry now, especially when the average price of a single issue is as much as it costs for 10 issues in 1990 and 25 issues in 1975 - I don't buy the 'inflation' argument, I do buy the 'we're going to screw as much money as we can from our dwindling audience as we can' theory. The films do not want to be going the way of the comics otherwise we might see an end to them all in the next ten years. The thing about the FF is simple, there's already a lot of negativity on line about it. Pedro Pascal might have replaced John Krasinski as the 'fan favourite' to play Reed Richards, but even that jars with many people. The rest of the casting hasn't gone down too well; Vanessa Kirby might have the right name but doesn't quite look the right fit. Joseph Quinn might have impressed some people in Stranger Things but is a relative unknown (both he and Kirby are Brits as well), and while I really like the casting of Ethan Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm that's my only real positive, internet buzz has been quiet on this.

Nothing else about the film is known, apart from Matt Shakman is directing it and the release date is two weeks after Superman: Legacy, the first James Gunn DC film. That alone is probably the biggest risk because if Gunn's film flops it's not going to ignite people's appetites for more super heroics, but if Gunn's film is a huge success it could go either way for this MCU film, depending on how good it is and what the audiences think - word of mouth could be essential. Shakman has MCU form as he directed (and produced) WandaVision, which considering what has happened since then was an absolute masterpiece of television.

Coming out a couple of months prior to the FF is Captain America: Brave New World (Feb 2025) and rumour has it that Thunderbolts (May 2025) might also be out before the first family make their bow and this is where rumours start to become just that - rumours. The latest Cap film has allegedly had a number of rewrites and reshoots - which, frankly, is usually the death knell of any MCU film - and Thunderbolts, which is going to be a Sebastian Stan, Florence Pugh, David Harbour and Wyatt Russell project with the Red Hulk as their leader might also feature the green Hulk and Mark Ruffalo, or it might feature Skaar, the green Hulk's son setting up his joining the Avengers or it might not be any of these things at all. The truth is far more simple - not even Marvel/MCU/Disney knows what is going to happen with these two films and there's even the chance they might not even appear. Blade is scheduled for the autumn of 2025 and there has been less than 10 days filming done on that film, despite what you might have read. The reality is if Deadpool 3 is a success, it depends how much of a success it is as to whether there will be four MCU films in 2025 or just the one.

Regarding the Hulk, Kevin Feige has essentially dashed hopes of the third (second MCU) standalone movie, suggesting at a recent festival that the Hulk's story would be played out across a number of other MCU films where he would guest star. Industry insiders think this is likely to be the Cap and Thunderbolts films, possibly Avengers 5 and one other. It appears there is no appetite within Disney for a solo Hulk film, which seems strange given the character's popularity, but equally it might be down to the fact that Ruffalo isn't particularly liked among Disney execs, given his propensity for talking or exposing things that are usually covered in Disney's standard NDAs.

There are even suggestions that the Cap film might be turned into a four-part TV special, this is just a very unconfirmed rumour at the moment, but given that the film has been finished now for over 18 months and has been rewritten and reshot three times during that period suggests there is a major problem with it. Talking MCU TV; Agatha: Coven of Chaos is still scheduled for this year, no one at Disney has high hopes for what is likely to be a musical series and the proposed Ironheart series for 2025 has even less optimism around it, with several MCU people preferring the in limbo Armour Wars to be the 2025 series (it's supposed to be a film now but with the schedules already planned until 2026, who knows when that might happen) and maybe tying Ironheart into it or maybe even aiming that at a younger audience. The bottom line is the MCU's future in cinemas and on TV all depends on Deadpool and Wolverine and even then it isn't nailed on. There are lots of ifs and buts and Disney is playing its cards close to its proverbial chest. The feeling is Deadpool and Wolverine will be a success because the two Deadpool movies have appealed to non-comics fans and like Guardians of the Galaxy the character has built up its own standalone following; bringing Logan back in this film might smack of cynicism and commercialism, but Disney are a business and they will do anything they can to maximise profits. The problem here is that word 'standalone' - the third Guardians film was a hit because it appeals to a large group of people who weren't followers of the other MCU films; Disney aren't really going to be able to gauge what 2025 will bring off the back of one 2024 film.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the majority of superhero films is the overall quality; the refusal of Disney, Warner or whoever to let a writer's vision be the sole input. Too many films are being ruined by committee and if what we hear is true about rewrites and reshoots to delayed projects from 2023 and 2024 then we can't really expect a return to the glory days of the MCU any time soon. The Jonathan Majors debacle hangs over their heads as well; had Disney dumped the disgraced actor as soon as allegations emerged then it would have been seen as judging a man guilty before his guilt had been proven, but waiting for the courts to decide has, ultimately, fucked Disney over. However, it might have solved a lot of problems, a friend of mine who is connected to Marvel and knows people connected to the film division said to me recently, "Avengers: The Kang Dynasty is dead. Whatever Avengers 5 will be called it won't have Kang as the villain. Everything hinges on the Fantastic Four - that needs to be something special and I expect Dr Doom will be the lynchpin here. If Victor is a good villain in that movie then he'll return for Avengers 5." The dilemma here is that history isn't on the side of an FF film. Disney/MCU is trying to market the new film as a kind of de facto 'debut' of Marvel's first family, but we know there's both history and baggage and none of the previous incarnations - or their casts - are going to feature in any of the multiverse crossovers (they probably don't want to confuse the issue). If ever there was a case of putting all your eggs in one basket it's this one.

The other issue with Avengers 5 is who is going to be in it? As it stands, the only original Avenger still 'under contract' is Ruffalo. Chris Hemsworth has not gone back on his criticism of Thor 4 and has never stated he'd return to the role. There were rumours that he had an agreement in place to be part of the fifth Avengers movie, but aside from fan-made promo posters he is absent from MCU promo. It's unlikely that Jeremy Renner will return to Hawkeye, especially in the wake of his life-threatening injuries from 2023 and with the original Cap gone and Iron Man and Black Widow both dead, you either have their replacements (Sam Wilson, War Machine and the new Black Widow) or you pad the team out with the likes of Captain Marvel (unlikely as Brie Larson does not want to reprise her role) Doctor Strange, Shang-Chi and Spider-Man and even writing this paragraph I see an issue. Without your titular icons everything looks a little like barrel scraping. 

Things change and in the world of superhero films those changes happen almost overnight. Given that superhero films have probably passed their sell-by dates it would probably be safe to say that nothing is carved in stone at the moment and whether something is in development or in the can it depends on the movie before it whether or not it will actually happen. There has been a tremendous amount of time and money invested in the genre and given the amount of money it has earned over the last 15 years it probably still has some good will left. The problem - the final and main problem - is whether or not the cinema going public has the appetite for more superhero films and because the quality of the most recent releases has been poor that appetite has diminished. There's still a core audience but that isn't big enough to make it a profitable practice. The next twelve months sees just one superhero film from the two major players and that is likely to be a success even if the film itself is a pile of shit (there's two from Sony - Kraven and Venom 3 - but no one takes them seriously any longer; in fact all they do is just help precipitate the demise of the genre). 

On its own Deadpool and Wolverine isn't going to revitalise the genre; it's a placeholder, it's there to remind people that superhero films are still going strong. What follows it is the most important; will the six expected superhero films in 2025 be able to attract people back to the cinemas in drovers? The answer to that has to be a resounding NO. Six? Four from the MCU and two from DC doesn't sound to me like aiming for quality over quantity; it sounds like desperation and a touch of wishful thinking. Of course, if the unthinkable happens and Deadpool and Wolverine is a flop (or doesn't make a shit ton of cash) then we might see yet another rethink. Watch this space.